Unpublished Dispositionnotice: Tenth Circuit Rule 36.3 States That Unpublished Opinions and Orders and Judgments Have No Precedential Value and Shall Not Be Cited Except for Purposes of Establishing the Doctrines of the Law of the Case, Res Judicata, or Collateral Estoppel.in Re Rainsford J. Winslow and Winifred W. Winslow, Debtors,rainsford J. Winslow and Winifred W. Winslow, Plaintiffs-appellants, v. Williams Group and Morgan County, Defendants-appellees, 935 F.2d 278 (10th Cir. 1991)

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir.R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Rainsford and Winifred Winslow (debtors) appeal the district court's affirmance of the bankruptcy court's allowance of claims by creditors predicated on a state court judgment entered against debtors in Morgan County District Court in Fort Morgan, Colorado.

Based on our review of debtors' appellate briefs, it is apparent that debtors are improperly attempting to collaterally attack the state court judgment. It is well established that when a claim of a creditor is predicated upon a state court judgment, the claim may be assailed in bankruptcy court only upon the following grounds: (1) lack of jurisdiction over the parties or subject matter of the suit; or (2) the judgment is the product of fraud. Heiser v. Woodruff, 327 U.S. 726, 736 (1946).

Debtors have put forth no claim that either a jurisdictional defect or fraud of a party elicited the state court decision. Thus, debtors cannot collaterally attack the judgment in bankruptcy court.

Debtors have also challenged the procedural conduct of the proceedings in the district court and the bankruptcy court. We need not address debtors' argument that the bankruptcy judge was biased against them since this issue was not raised in a timely fashion below. Burnette v. Dresser Indus., Inc., 849 F.2d 1277, 1282 (10th Cir. 1988). Furthermore, we agree with the reasons given by the district court for refusing to consider two volumes submitted by debtors as part of the record on appeal.

Accordingly, the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado is AFFIRMED. All pending motions are denied as moot.